I don't actually play GTA online, but they are very successful with their online offering, their daily low looks to be >60k concurrent players. I suspect it'd be VERY hard not to continue with the online bit.

Having read one of his books, he's not qualified to speak on the topic of psychology.

Interviewer: why are you a good fit for valve?

Hoopo: we sold ror before we could make a third

interviewer: welcome aboard!

If the internal sponsor of an idea get bored or loses support from colleagues, the project just halts.

Yeah, i kind of agree with everything you've said, and history as i remember it kind of backs up what you've said about tf2.

But I don't agree that they don't care about story and only do it for marketing. I think halflife's episodes are all about an attempt at continuing that story.

I think that the Cave and Glados bits of portal are a large part of what made those games (of course the gameplay loops are really tight there.

I think the only way to know would to be an insider. I also don't think it really matters, the games they make are good.

I do think you are right, they start out on gameplay; getting that inner game loop to be fun is primary (I kind of though that's how most (non narrative) game studios worked though).

they don't make games to tell stories

This was mostly what i was suggesting was incorrect. I also don't think it's a major part of marketing. I'm suggesting they don't bother putting the work of story into something until that inner game loop is fun.

TF2 was the result of experimentation with team based death match gameplay

Didn't they already know about team fortress? This seems off based on team fortress having already existed, same with wolfenstine enemy territory.

I'm not sure your theory stands up, they did all those comics around TF2. They hired those old man Murray dudes I thought just to work on narrative. They've gotten famous actors to do roles!

I think saying halflife was never about story is just wrong.

If you stripped dialog from portal you'd have a significantly worse game. Did you forget all the glados shit that came out after portal? Humor is a major part of those games which is all about dialog.

I don't understand how it's naive at best? What you've stated, sounds almost the same as what i stated except with optimism.

This is a pretty insulting, and not bound to help people listen and understand you.

a) drag the whole country leftward, economically

I'm a big supporter of PR (I don't really understand people who aren't -- it gives your vote more weight). I also support more social spending and higher taxes for extreme wealth.

My understanding is that countries that have implemented it have a more fractured government where people complain that it can't get anything done. Given the support that cpc apparently has, and all the "fuck trudeau" people, i'm suspicious that we wouldn't also have a healthy representation the right; people with whom i disagree.

Man i look at that picture and think: douche bag.

Based on the summary it sound like they didn't lie, just didn't point out their own inability to deal with it in their own ridings

Wow, really appreciate these points. I was mostly thinking about teaching people how to budget, not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century.

It seems kind of ok, everyone agrees that they should be teaching some finance basics. I guess I would.jave preferred to see what outcomes this has had in other places (rather than just trying random experiments on our students). It'd be nice to see if Doug could pass this test himself.

The police illegally surveilled her? This doesn't seem good at all. She was voted in multiple times. This is almost opposite of what you are saying.

This is bad.

Point of a corporation is to make money. Point of a "limited liability company" is to prevent losses on the company side from financially damaging the owners. LLC's do not (and should not) protect owners from criminal acts.

This shit happens all the time. Look at car settlements, it starts at the top. I'm not against a whistle blower framework at all, but it seems like executives get all the pay and none of the culpability (see headline).

Executives, focus on executives.

Sometimes home owners will sell their house after retirement for something smaller, live off the difference, then sell that house and use the money from that for long term care, or inheritance.

There's also the obvious: they worked for something, possibly quite hard, why do they have to pay the price for others? Presumably they've been paying taxes all along, and have already been contributing to the greater good.

I guess my feeling is, it's not so simple to just wreck housing prices. I absolutely feel like corporations, and probably some ultra wealthy don't work that hard and get most of the rewards (or aren't even people), like if the money has to come from somewhere there is a clear set of people who could afford to lose some wealth, and not materially effect their life; and that's not necessarily single dwelling home owners.

I think what's being said is: if housing prices lower, you are going to ruin some people's retirement plan -- at least some of those people will have worked hard their entire life to purchase and pay off that house. There's been some incentive to save in this way as well (first time home buyer plan, tax deductions for more ecologically sound houses, that kind of thing).

I suspect he's probably right, that letting house prices drop would over all make things worse in Canada. My goto solution would be to subsidize housing by increasing taxes on corporations and people/corporations that own more than one house. but i'm not any kind of expert

In most cases yes. However in the cases of fines poor people are more penalized than wealthy, so there should be some proportional consideration there.

this is normal enshittification, we just move on to the next shit.

I'm very lazy so I'd probably start by looking at filters on those sites, if i really wanted to tackle this with programming, i'd:

see if there's an api, or rss feed for these sites, if so i'd pull that down with a cron job and do filtering locally with probably regex.

if not i'd scrape the html and pull out the relevant links with whatever the latest html parser is for the language i use (i.e. it used to be beautiful soup for python, but there's i think a new better one).

but as i said i'm rather lazy, and haven't been on the prowl for jobs for some time.

I was thinking of amazon.com and kind of happy about it... now i'm sad

besides the example i gave actually harming people, and them not being in prison, to go from "people who don't help society" to murder is kind of a stretch isn't it?

you realize it's possible to neither help nor harm society.

i am canadian, are we limited to examples only of canadian's who harm societies, C suite of loblaws isn't in jail are they?

I know halifax has some shit history that i didn't learn in school -- i think i mostly learned about black history from american sources, and my own reading.

untrue, many examples first one that comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackler_family

Finally some good news! Although I'm sort of surprised this didn't exist already

I've heard 4% rule, but for myself I use an investment firm that does monte carlo projections, with ages, spending rates, and current assets to give you a rough idea of likelihood of assets lasting till death.

Ive also played with a few of the retirement calculators made by the FIRE crowd i.e. https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/beyond-4-rule-how-much-can-you-spend-retirement

1. You are free to not spend money there
2. If you took this logic and turned it around, i could see an argument saying the moment you stop helping society why should we let you exist

I agree that in the best interests of having a pleasant place to live, or elected officials should force them to sell at not so great a profit. I feel like "they shouldn't be allowed to exist" is a poor way to put it.

We might live better if this were true (maybe not), but it is not at all their job. Neither is it our job to serve them.

oh yeah, not saying it's a good thing at all...

To my limited knowledge (reading https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1551870) this seems to be the Canadian norm: you don't own the land under your land

You don't have to, and here we are with what IMO is the worst choice, because you didn't vote.

Not voting is not an excuse when Doug is on the ballot, you still need to vote for the less sucky person.

It's time to admit that us Ontarians just suck on average.

In my experience corporations serve their shareholders (and maybe board and executive s).

20 years, 15%. That is a very low amount. Title is terrible.

I haven't read the article...yet (after a skim I agree with the article). I really don't know how to feel about the gay/trans issue as I'm fine with my kids being gay or trans, but I don't want anyone dictating to me what religion or philosophy I raise my kids with, so I feel like I shouldn't get to say what the nut jobs believe it what they tell their children (to a point)... This is tough

You aren't a parent are you? Cause children will actually hurt themselves badly, and really do need active care at an early age.

For older children setting boundaries for your children so they aren't assholes is "determining best interests".

I don't want people telling me what religion or philosophy to raise my kids in, I kind of think of this as parents rights. Of course as kids get to be adults those go away.

As a parent, this is a parenting/personal issue, fuck off and please spend my money doing useful things (like supporting health care, or housing) not attempting to protect my children.

Skim the article, it's 20 large municipality's, nowhere is 0 mentioned

It seems like you maybe thinking this is saying police do nothing, it isn't.

No consistent association means the data doesn't back up higher or lower funding having an impact on crime. It doesn't say anything about rates when the funding is zero or when funding is very high.

I think it means can't pay to reduce crime, or not pay and expect crime to go up.

Testing for zero would be extremely difficult, because we only have one Toronto sized city in Canada.

I'm guessing here but I suspect that there's a significant number of places with zero police presence that have very little crime. And this article suggests that there are very well funded police presences where crime still happens.

How is it impossible to be true?

I'm not sure how you could make this argument without making assumptions about base crime rates.